Just something to remember: the stupid meal does NOT contain complete information.

Since when does that translate into the Stupid Meal containing incorrect or flawed information? Just because it isn't complete doesn't mean the facts we've seen aren't one-hundred-percent true/accurate... In all honesty, if we're gonna use the quote that it isn't "complete", there's no reason to debate anything from the Meal; if we start discussing the incompleteness of said Stupid-Meal, there's a theoretical amount of (nigh-)infinite information being left off.

No one in particular wrote:

Still, you raise an interesting point... how DID Parson get to level 2? When did that happen?

The most popular theory I've seen was that Parson started at level two because of the time he lived on Stupidworld... He hadn't done much with his life, but Parson had managed to accomplish a small list of things...he graduated Highschool, it's likely he went to college for an undisclosed amount of time (although he didn't graduate), he rents his own apartment, had a job, had a car, etc., etc., -- If anything in life is worthy of getting us 'Achievements' or 'Levels', I'd say that's a good place to start...wouldn't you agree? Of course, that's all hearsay and speculative-information with nothing to back it up. In fact, it's the type of argument I hate to read from others...lol.

Just something to remember: the stupid meal does NOT contain complete information.

Since when does that translate into the Stupid Meal containing incorrect or flawed information? Just because it isn't complete doesn't mean the facts we've seen aren't one-hundred-percent true/accurate...

while looking for that, I just ran across an oddity on book 1, page 38... is that sushi rendered in 3D? ARKENSUSHI!Anyway, the statement on page 39:

Quote:

Did you know? When flying units are over water, mountains, or heavy trees, they can only be attacked by other fliers!

Um, wow. Please tell me that you do realize that there are still places on Stupidworld where people do indeed go to war "because This Tribe needs more farmland." Or because someone took their vineyard. Or because they need lebensraum. It's not all about the delusions and the politics.

Hence the word JUST in the original quote

Oberon wrote:

Housellama wrote:

Don't confuse Defense with War. There _IS_ a difference. The Department of Defense was created and continues to exist to protect America. Politicians are the ones that use it to wage war. Don't blame the tool for the actions of the hands that hold it.

Again, please tell me that you're aware that the "Department of the Defense" sprang from a name and organizational change from the "Department of War."

Yes, I am aware of American History.

Oberon wrote:

There is no real distinction between "defense" and war, after a certain point. The purpose of a standing military force is to be used to advance the agenda of the state. If you really believe that some kind of pure defensive role is even tangential to the real purpose of a modern military, you need a civics refresher course, pronto.

A standing army exists to defend the citizens and protect the interests of its country. A soldier is someone who signs up to put his or her body on the line to stand between his or her country and danger. They go out and follow orders, spend uncomfortable months sweating in desert heat or freezing in winter cold, working themselves to the bone, not to mention very possibly killing and dying for the country they love. A politician is someone who makes the policies that ultimately decide what those soldiers do. Often the only consequences they suffer from those decisions are bad press and losing elections. So tell me who's really at fault here...

Separate the tool from the hand that holds it.

Oberon wrote:

I love my country, but that does not mean that I stick my head in the sand and pretend that the worlds largest military expenditure by a factor of 6 (as compared to the runner up, China) or by a factor of 2 (as compared to the EU, which comprises 27 different countries) just sits around and only plays a defensive role. If there were no real return on that investment, it would cease to be invested in. And we do NOT need the military we have for a strict defensive role, by a factor of many.

Who writes that budget? Who makes those expenditures? Who determines where that military moves? The soldiers? Nope. The politicians.

Oberon wrote:

Housellama wrote:

... There's a rant there, but it's not related to Erfworld. My personal soapbox can wait. I respectfully request that we don't go into that topic here. If you want to discuss it privately, bring it. But this is about Erfworld.

The author has specifically stated that politics, religion,and other controversial subjects are not forbidden on this site, as they were on the prior site. So before you trot out your rather uninformed positions and then attempt to shut down the rebuttal by claiming non-relevance with Erfworld, just be aware that such relevance isn't an issue here.

Yes, in fact, I am aware of that. Hence why I included the personal pronoun. "I respectfully request" If you will actually read what I wrote, then you will see that I actually welcomed rebuttal. I simply asked for it through a different medium. If you disagree, that's cool. That's your choice. But don't accuse me of putting something that I claimed off on someone else.

If you have a problem with me, discuss it with me. I don't particularly enjoy having these kinds discussions in public. It's tasteless and I doubt many people are interested in hearing others squabble. Or not. It is a free country, thanks to a great many soldiers that came before us.

_________________"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu, Chapter 1, Line 18, The Art of War

"The principle of strategy is to know ten thousand things by having one thing." - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Earth, Go Rin No Sho

Yes. So far peace has never been a viable option. It's unprofitable, it leads to treachery and it all around just doesn't work. That's the point of Parson. He's the guy who's going to Make Peace Work. He's the one thing hippiemancy really needs, but previously could never have. "A soujah!" A warlord dedicated to peace. The PERFECT warlord. A warlord so good that he can beat every enemy in his path, and leave the cities behind him producing a profit without resorting to war. THAT'S what the hippiemancers want. They want a warlord who is so terrible and ruthless that he will break a world based on war by conquering it completely, leaving peace in his wake.

That sort of peace is utterly different from any peace in our world. Peace of the dead.

It IS utterly different from peace in our world, because it's a different system. It's a lot more like a corporate takeover. Parson's got a much better corporate strategy, and he wants to corner the market. Now, either he can go through and find ways to peacefully merge with other companies so that they adopt his strategy, or it can be a hostile takeover.

Picture this. Parson as the lead strategist with completed self-sufficiency hack. Wanda and Stanley and the 'tools as the muscle. The GMTTA as the intelligence service. And Tram and the hippie- and predictamancers running the diplomatic corps. You don't have to kill everyone and conquer everything. All you have to do is approach a new side and trot out the Tram the diplomat with a gun in one hand (Wanda and Stanley and the Decrypted and Dragons) and a sandwich in the other (self-sufficiency hack) and ask them which one they'd like.

"Look. We COULD just roll up in here and wipe your puny little kingdom off the face of Erf, but that's a lot of fuss and bother and it'll get everyone's outfit all dirty. Instead, we'd like to offer you a chance to stay alive AND make some smuckers in the process. See, we've got this little scheme going, and we'll tell you all about it and help you put it into place. All you have to do is stop fighting. With us, with each other, with everyone else. Just sit back, chill, do your farming and let the cash roll in. Or, you could say no, and we'll let the people with the really big 'tools and the really big armies break some of your stuff, and then we'll MAKE you do it. So what do you say we just sign an agreement right here and then go out for some tea, hmm? It'll be a lot easier on everyone..."

Add a few smiles, Wanda doing her creepy psycho thing in the background in front of miles of Decrypted, plus Stanley on dragonback, etc. It'd be a good sell. And if they say no, you wreck a few cities and come back to the table. Repeat until they say yes, or they run out of cities. Then pick a new side. Later, rinse, repeat. Viola, peaceful Erfworld

_________________"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu, Chapter 1, Line 18, The Art of War

"The principle of strategy is to know ten thousand things by having one thing." - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Earth, Go Rin No Sho

Easier said than done when the people sign up for being the tool when they know full well the hand that holds it.

Not so easy when the hand that holds the reins can change every 2-4 years. Is the soldier who signed up in the wake of 9/11 to blame for Iraq? Is the soldier that signed up during the Bush administration responsible for Libya? No and No.

Easier said than done when the people sign up for being the tool when they know full well the hand that holds it.

A lot of the people who sign up, sign up because they want a college education, or they don't have that many other choices, or they want to be the best they can be or because they simply believe it's the right thing to do, regardless of who holds the reigns. Patriotism is not a sin. Neither is having too few options, nor the desire for self improvement. There are many reasons to serve, and very few of them have to do with politics. In fact, most of them don't.

For the vast majority of the people at the bottom of the stack, they are just as much victims of politics as the people they are shooting at. The soldiers on the ground are men and women who are just trying to get the job done, just like everyone else.

_________________"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu, Chapter 1, Line 18, The Art of War

"The principle of strategy is to know ten thousand things by having one thing." - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Earth, Go Rin No Sho

It IS utterly different from peace in our world, because it's a different system. It's a lot more like a corporate takeover. Parson's got a much better corporate strategy, and he wants to corner the market. Now, either he can go through and find ways to peacefully merge with other companies so that they adopt his strategy, or it can be a hostile takeover.

His current strategies are mostly betrayal and rule tricks. He's achieved most of his successes through that, not corporate strategy.

Diplomacy has never worked in erfworld for Parson yet, to my knowledge. He's a general, so he may not have any ability.

Quote:

Picture this. Parson as the lead strategist with completed self-sufficiency hack. Wanda and Stanley and the 'tools as the muscle. The GMTTA as the intelligence service. And Tram and the hippie- and predictamancers running the diplomatic corps. You don't have to kill everyone and conquer everything. All you have to do is approach a new side and trot out the Tram the diplomat with a gun in one hand (Wanda and Stanley and the Decrypted and Dragons) and a sandwich in the other (self-sufficiency hack) and ask them which one they'd like.

"Look. We COULD just roll up in here and wipe your puny little kingdom off the face of Erf, but that's a lot of fuss and bother and it'll get everyone's outfit all dirty. Instead, we'd like to offer you a chance to stay alive AND make some smuckers in the process. See, we've got this little scheme going, and we'll tell you all about it and help you put it into place. All you have to do is stop fighting. With us, with each other, with everyone else. Just sit back, chill, do your farming and let the cash roll in. Or, you could say no, and we'll let the people with the really big 'tools and the really big armies break some of your stuff, and then we'll MAKE you do it. So what do you say we just sign an agreement right here and then go out for some tea, hmm? It'll be a lot easier on everyone..."

Add a few smiles, Wanda doing her creepy psycho thing in the background in front of miles of Decrypted, plus Stanley on dragonback, etc. It'd be a good sell. And if they say no, you wreck a few cities and come back to the table. Repeat until they say yes, or they run out of cities. Then pick a new side. Later, rinse, repeat. Viola, peaceful Erfworld

I suspect you'd get what happened to Caesar happen to you. You'd get a city spelled up to the balls and a shockamancer commanding a ton of shockamancy capable archons from Charlie, and they'd kill Wanda and Stanley. Your side would die. Having your ruler there would just be stupid.

Every army, no matter how big, has a weak point. Being predictable is the easiest way to be defeated. Parson's skills are about being unpredictable and innovative.

Besides which, he's said to bring peace by breaking the world, in the context of killing every unit within several hexes with a volcano. A lot of violence.

I suspect you'd get what happened to Caesar happen to you. You'd get a city spelled up to the balls and a shockamancer commanding a ton of shockamancy capable archons from Charlie, and they'd kill Wanda and Stanley. Your side would die. Having your ruler there would just be stupid.

Every army, no matter how big, has a weak point. Being predictable is the easiest way to be defeated. Parson's skills are about being unpredictable and innovative.

*facepalm* There's a difference between Strategy and Tactics. And it's a HUGE difference. You're talking about tactics. I'm talking about strategy. I'm generalizing the idea of a grand strategy of making a peaceful Erfworld. You're nitpicking apart the tactics of an individual battle. That's not even apples and oranges. That's apples and rocks. There's no comparison at all. Parson's not an idiot. Parson knows how to fight a battle. Parson's proven that he knows how to win. You can, quite easily, win a war with a predictable strategy, if your tactics are world class. Which Parson's are. It doesn't do your opponent much good to be able to predict your next move if they have no idea how to beat it.

Ytaker wrote:

Besides which, he's said to bring peace by breaking the world, in the context of killing every unit within several hexes with a volcano. A lot of violence.

Eggs, omelet. Forest, trees. Ends, means.

_________________"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu, Chapter 1, Line 18, The Art of War

"The principle of strategy is to know ten thousand things by having one thing." - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Earth, Go Rin No Sho

[Parson's] current strategies are mostly betrayal and rule tricks. He's achieved most of his successes through that, not corporate strategy.

Diplomacy has never worked in erfworld for Parson yet, to my knowledge. He's a general, so he may not have any ability.

Not so well with his opponents, but then diplomacy is not typically a working strategy against a coalition of enemy nations whose armed forces are already on their way and who outnumber you militarily 25:1.

Parson has been very diplomatically successful otherwise, however. He befriended Sizemore, and Sizemore seems to have had few if any friends within GK before his link with Maggie. He has earned whatever Wanda passes off as respect. Poor Misty went out of her way to help him from nothing more than Parson expressing his needs to her. Maggie has placed her life on the line twice to support him against Stanley. Jack is bedazzled by the unorthodox approach his new CWL has over any other man he has known. And, Parson turned the entire room full of casters around when they were convinced he was miss-named as the perfect warlord, with not much more than a "WTF!" followed by some sound strategic teaching which engaged their minds and turned their thoughts away from the hopelessness they had fallen into.

There isn't much of a case that Parson is not a charismatic and natural leader, despite not being the next most gallant fool in line for the CWL spot. And this seems to be one of the major points of the comic.

thaco4 wrote:

But I argue that we do not have convincing proof that the luckamancy spell didn't work. After all Bogroll was Lucky that the Archons didn't say anything. After all, Jaclyn would have.

Jaclyn died the prior turn. Are you saying that a luckamancy spell is able to effect events in the past, and caused Jaclyn to be the sole archon killed by the GK tower magics in preparation for it being cast in the future?

_________________How using capslock wins arguments:

Zeroberon wrote:

So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

If you have a problem with me, discuss it with me. I don't particularly enjoy having these kinds discussions in public.

I don't have a problem with you, other than your cowardice. It is cowardice to expect that you can trot out your pet social theories on a public forum and then decide that all rebuttal should be made only to you, in private. If you don't care to hold a public discussion, don't start a public discussion.

Housellama wrote:

A lot of the people who sign up, sign up because they want a college education, or they don't have that many other choices, or they want to be the best they can be or because they simply believe it's the right thing to do, regardless of who holds the reigns. Patriotism is not a sin. Neither is having too few options, nor the desire for self improvement. There are many reasons to serve, and very few of them have to do with politics. In fact, most of them don't.

For the vast majority of the people at the bottom of the stack, they are just as much victims of politics as the people they are shooting at. The soldiers on the ground are men and women who are just trying to get the job done, just like everyone else.

Hello, Dr. Jekyll. I believe I met Mr. Hyde a few posts back. I'm glad to see that you've got the body this time around.Let me paraphrase one of your sentences by a single word, which in a better world might help to make things an even better world."There are many ways to serve, and very few of them have to do with politics." If we can agree on this, then I'd like to take one baby step further: One excellent way to serve is to vote. To actually be that "well informed public" so famously cited and so recently absent.

_________________How using capslock wins arguments:

Zeroberon wrote:

So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.

*facepalm* There's a difference between Strategy and Tactics. And it's a HUGE difference. You're talking about tactics. I'm talking about strategy. I'm generalizing the idea of a grand strategy of making a peaceful Erfworld. You're nitpicking apart the tactics of an individual battle. That's not even apples and oranges. That's apples and rocks. There's no comparison at all. Parson's not an idiot. Parson knows how to fight a battle. Parson's proven that he knows how to win. You can, quite easily, win a war with a predictable strategy, if your tactics are world class. Which Parson's are. It doesn't do your opponent much good to be able to predict your next move if they have no idea how to beat it.

In the end, a strategy is tactics. Unless you have tactics which can bring about your strategy your strategy is invalid. You can't forget the tactical side of things when devising a strategy.

If you decide to attack a side's cities several times to intimidate them, eventually they'll set a trap. Sooner rather than later, probably. With the variance in casters there's a good chance that one side may be able to kill your leadership. Once your high bonus leadership is gone your entire army will be vulnerable.

Parson has continually said that war is unpredictable and that sometimes you lose. The opponents do have many ways of beating the various tactics.

Plus, if you're going to focus your army enough to take out a single side you'll be leaving other cities vulnerable to attack. You'll probably be leaving your capital open to assault. If you have an immense army it'll be hard to apply any self sufficiency hack because your upkeep will be absolutely huge.

Also, @Oberon. I can personally attest that having friends doesn't make you a good diplomat. I have many friends. I can make friends easily. That doesn't mean I'm going at resolving disputes. Being able to make friends helps, but that's only one in a vast array of skills you need.

But I argue that we do not have convincing proof that the luckamancy spell didn't work. After all Bogroll was Lucky that the Archons didn't say anything. After all, Jaclyn would have.

Jaclyn died the prior turn. Are you saying that a luckamancy spell is able to effect events in the past, and caused Jaclyn to be the sole archon killed by the GK tower magics in preparation for it being cast in the future?

That is not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that we have proof in a number of cases where the archons prevented the coalition from being suckered by a spell. And in this one case they didn't interfere. I've just always assumed that his Luckamancy spell worked. And because it worked, the portal recognized him as a caster.

That is not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that we have proof in a number of cases where the archons prevented the coalition from being suckered by a spell. And in this one case they didn't interfere. I've just always assumed that his Luckamancy spell worked. And because it worked, the portal recognized him as a caster.

Hah, that's an interesting view. I'd always interpreted "I tried to cast luckamancy" as just a turn of phrase like wishing good luck - I never thought there was any indication that Parson *actually* cast anything or even knew how to try.

Ah well, to each his own.

_________________For those in the USA: Have you wondered what you would do during in the civil rights movement, or in the 1930s?

Well, what did you do yesterday? Now you know.

Let's all be the kind of people we wish everyone had been then. Show up. Call. Resist.

For the record though, i would side with Housellama, both in his opinions and because he tried to keep this forum focused on what it is for. Calling that cowardice is really really, um, foolish, to put it nicely.

_________________"Is this a real holy war? Or just a bunch of deluded boopholes croaking each other? Too fine a distinction?"

For the record though, i would side with Housellama, both in his opinions and because he tried to keep this forum focused on what it is for. Calling that cowardice is really really, um, foolish, to put it nicely.

My apologies. I don't like for these things to happen, and I'm sorry it went as far as it did. It takes two to tango, so while I did try to keep it focused, I did continue to reply. I'll do my best in the future to avoid it

_________________"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu, Chapter 1, Line 18, The Art of War

"The principle of strategy is to know ten thousand things by having one thing." - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Earth, Go Rin No Sho

Not exactly correct. Strategy is what you want to do. Tactics is how you go about doing it.

Strategy: "Sergeant! We need to take that hill so that we can get a better view of the battle!"Tactics: "Yes Sir! Tom, you, Dick and Harry flank left. John Doe, I want you and Jane to flank right! Jack, I want you and Jill charge straight up that hill! Now let's go!"

Strategy: Establishing a safe landing zone so that more troops can be moved.Tactic: Marines performing a low altitude drop into the zone and clearing a block. Once they have, they call in a second drop so that they can slowly expand that perimeter until a safe LZ has been established.

Strategy: Establish stability in the region by defeating Iraq. (I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with this. Merely using a familiar example.)Tactics: Using superior air power to knock out communications and establish complete air supremacy. Using superior agility and ground firepower to outflank and outgun the army on the ground, accompanied by airstrikes.

You get the point. If you want to get general enough then sure. They both follow the same basic theories of psychology laid out by Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, Clausewitz, etc. But on an operational level, there is a big difference.

_________________"All warfare is based on deception" - Sun Tzu, Chapter 1, Line 18, The Art of War

"The principle of strategy is to know ten thousand things by having one thing." - Miyamoto Musashi, The Book of Earth, Go Rin No Sho

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum